James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

HAIR ( Senator McGrath ) (): The committee is considering the amendments moved by Senator Farrell on sheets QE100, PX151, PX149, PX150 and ZB195, and the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock to government amendment No. (1) on sheet ZZB195. The current question before the chair is that Senator David Pocock's amendment be agreed to.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I wonder if you had the opportunity to refresh your memory or to seek wider advice from your colleagues about the issues we were discussing this morning?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Paterson. I've had a response from the Attorney-General and it's a very long response. I'm happy to give it to you—to read it out or to table it. What about that? Are you happy to receive it through tabling?

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly have no objection to it being tabled, but I would also like to ask follow-up questions based on it. If it's a very long statement, I suppose that we shouldn't waste time on reading it out. Perhaps other senators can ask their questions and deal with their matters while I consider the document, after it has been tabled, and then I can ask questions on that basis.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I table the document.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, how will the AEC police electoral material with no authorisation during the referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have thought that they would police it in the same way they police it in a general election: if somebody makes a complaint or they discover that somebody hasn't authorised relevant material then they would take the action they would take in any other set of circumstances.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the government intend to provide the electoral roll to any organisation campaigning during the referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, will parliamentarians be allowed to provide their access to the electoral roll to organisations that are campaigning during the referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not permitted.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the legislation, Minister, can a parliamentarian campaign for either case at the referendum? And can the staff of a parliamentarian campaign for either case at the referendum as part of their duties?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, noting that certain electoral activities undertaken by parliamentarians and political parties associated with them are exempt from the Privacy Act 1988, will the activities of participants captured by the referendum machinery provisions in this bill and the act be subject to the same exemptions?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're not registered political parties, so there would be no exemption.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've said that you want this to be a civil-society led referendum, and many community groups will be involved. If a community group nominates to fundraise for the purpose of putting forward an argument in the referendum, will they be captured by the donation regime?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that if they go over the disclosure threshold then they would have to declare. That threshold, which I think I talked about earlier today, is in the vicinity of $15,000.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what mechanisms are in place to prevent a community group from accepting a foreign donation, prior to them actually receiving it?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This act replicates the foreign donations provisions of the Electoral Act. As I've said so many times today, the idea is to match the same experience, and so the same provisions would apply.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The foreign donations law applies to registered political entities, and these organisations won't be registered political entities or registered political parties. Is there a mechanism that's specifically in place to prevent civil society at large from accepting foreign donations, prior to them actually doing it?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If they became a referendum entity by virtue of the level of donations then, yes, they would be captured if they were in receipt of foreign donations.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So a referendum entity is something that has to be registered? Earlier today you said that there wasn't necessarily going to be a register of entities that can campaign as part of the referendum.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're not formally registered. They're required to disclose and, as such, they would then attract the regulation regarding foreign donations.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will a community organisation be liable for receiving an illegal donation if they are ignorant of the provisions against foreign donations?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a general rule, ignorance of the law is no defence. That wouldn't be any different in these circumstances, and, obviously, they are subject to the foreign disclosure provisions.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the government then expect a community group to be prosecuted by the AEC if they receive an illegal donation?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The idea is that, by virtue of the foreign donations rules, it would work in the same way it would work in a general election. We're not seeking to do anything different here. The idea is to standardise the experience that people get and the obligations organisations have, whether it be for a general election or for a referendum.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the penalty for receiving an illegal foreign donation, and what action would the government take when it becomes aware of foreign donations occurring?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand it to be 100 penalty units. What was your second question?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What action would the government take?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It wouldn't be the government taking the action. It would be the Australian Electoral Commission, who would do whatever they usually do when they find a breach of any aspect of the electoral law, which I imagine would be a prosecution.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How might donations of cryptocurrency be treated under this donations regime?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll get the AEC to give me a response to that question.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How will donations in kind to organisations campaigning in the referendum be treated under the donations regime?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will be treated exactly the same as the Electoral Act currently provides.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will foreign citizens be able to purchase goods and services that are sold for the purpose of funding referendum activities?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, it's exactly the same provisions as in the Electoral Act, which is that if it's in excess of $100 then yes, it applies.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you explain to me what will happen to funds raised by a referendum campaign organisation that isn't expended prior to the referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you repeat that question?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If an organisation is a campaigning organisation for the referendum and is accepting donations from citizens to campaign for the referendum, what will happen to that money if the organisation hasn't expended all of those donations prior to the referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be the same as it is for a political organisation if they raise more money than they use in an election. It would sit somewhere, I guess, in a bank account. Obviously, if it exceeds the threshold, they would be required to declare that. I assume it would be up to the organisation as to what it subsequently does with the money.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

nator HUME () (): Is there any obligation on the organisation to notify those that have donated that it still contains money in a bank account somewhere that belongs to them and hasn't been expended?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the rule would be the same as a political party getting more money than it expends. I don't know how often that happens. I suppose it happens occasionally. It never happens in the Labor Party, so we never have this issue. The only answer I can give you is that the organisation would have to resolve how they dealt with the money. If it were no longer required, you'd hopefully get them to return the money if that were possible.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My concern there, of course, is that if you donate to a political party the chances are it's going to be fighting another election—a referendum is a one-off occurrence. I think that there probably needs to be some clarity around that. Perhaps you could confirm for the chamber that the government is considering how to build some clarity around that.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll give it some very deep thought.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What confidence should Australians have that they'll be donating to a genuine referendum campaign organisation?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The hope of the government is that this referendum will be conducted in a civil fashion—that each side will have an opportunity to progress its arguments through civil society. Our expectation is that people will abide by that sense of civility in the processes and that we won't find people doing things that are inappropriate or, for that matter, illegal.

If we find that issues arise in that regard, and I hope we don't find that those sorts of issues arise, then I guess we'll have to deal with them. But we're working on the basis that people are going to behave appropriately throughout the course of the referendum and that we won't get into a situation where, for instance, people are illegally taking money on false pretences. But I guess there are other laws which might come into play. If somebody set themselves up as an organisation receiving money for the 'yes' or 'no' case and we discovered that in fact they were a bogus organisation, I imagine there are laws in place that deal with those sorts of things quite independently of the referendum.

I think we have to work on the basis of a degree of trust in the Australian people and trust that this will be a civil campaign and that, at the end of the day, whether it's a 'yes' case or a 'no' case, people are satisfied that the Australian people have had appropriate opportunity to express their view on a Voice to Parliament.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, do you think that, without a register of organisations or an official 'yes' or 'no' campaign, this is a situation that is ripe for scammers?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, when a private company engages in pro bono work on behalf of a referendum entity or a participant captured by one of the disclosure regimes, would that activity be captured as a donation or a gift? How would that be disclosed—as a donation or a gift by the individual, or as a donation or a gift by the company?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be treated as an in-kind donation for both.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where a private company becomes aware of work conducted using its resources and its staff for a referendum entity or a participant and it hasn't disclosed that activity, will that organisation then be subject to penalties?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be an issue for the AEC to work through, in the same way they would do that in respect of a general election.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the minister confirm that the donation and disclosure regimes in the bill, and the act, will apply retrospectively?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you talking in respect of contributions that might already have been made to either the 'yes' case or the 'no' case?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or to a community entity or community organisation or to a private company who are—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a reasonably complicated answer. Let me see if I can explain it. If the money is received and spent in the six months prior to the issuing of the writ then, yes, it will have to be included in the declaration that you make. I consider that a prospective rather than retrospective application because the declaration would have to be done after the issuing of the writ.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just clarify? Because we don't know the date of the issuing of the writ yet there are companies out there right now who may be donating their time, may be donating their staff's time and may be donating money that don't realise that they have to declare that or record it yet. Is that a concern for the government?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we're concerned about is that when this legislation, hopefully, passes today—if you don't have too many more questions for me—all organisations understand their obligations and comply with them.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure that organisations understand their obligations, because those obligations haven't been specified to those organisations yet and they don't know whether they fall outside or inside that six-month regime. Is there a message from the government that you would like to send today to those organisations that want to provide pro bono work to a campaign organisation?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, there is a message, and thank you for the opportunity you've given me to give them a message: please comply with the obligations under this new legislation, and we'll do our level best to make sure that you're aware of what your obligations are. I suspect the sorts of organisations that you are talking about, Senator Hume, will take a very careful look at the legislation and take the opportunity to get some advice. I'm sure my office—and perhaps even yours—after this legislation goes through would be happy to advise them exactly what their obligations are.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, thank you for tabling this statement. I'm not sure that your definition of 'long' and my definition of 'long' are the same. This is a single-sided, double-spaced dot-pointed piece of paper. It might have taken two minutes to read into the Hansard. But, nonetheless, thank you. Really the only first dot points are relevant in any case, which read:

Am I to understand from this that the Attorney-General and the government have also not sought any advice—and you admitted you had not—about the foreign interference risks in the referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you have a bit of an obsession in this area, Senator Paterson, and are looking for an opportunity to expose or expand on foreign interference in any aspect of our society—and good luck to you in doing that; I don't have any difficulty with that. The AEC monitor these things very closely—much more closely. I'm happy to take you into the AEC one day and show you what they do in this space to keep an eye on all of these things. If they felt that there was an issue that needed to be addressed in this area, I'm sure the first thing they would do is make contact with me about it—or, for that matter, with the Attorney General, if it were something in his bailiwick. As I said before, I was talking with the AEC yesterday. I've got the greatest confidence that they will conduct the referendum in exactly the appropriate way, but that if an issue of foreign interference does arise then we will become aware of it and we will take appropriate action.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be clear, has the government sought advice from any agency about the foreign interference risk at the upcoming referendum? Yes or no?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can talk for myself, and the answer to that is no. We referred to the comments made by the Attorney-General earlier. As I said, if we believe an issue arises here, based on advice from either the AEC or other organisations, then we will take the appropriate action.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, it wasn't just a question to you; it is a question to the government. I would be grateful if you could answer on behalf of the government, as you are representing them here on this bill. I ask again: has the government sought advice from any agency on the risk of interference in this upcoming referendum? To assist you: for example, ASIO, ASD, ONI, the Department of Home Affairs or the Attorney-General's Department. Have any of them been asked for advice on the foreign interference risks in the referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only answer the question based on my own knowledge, and I have done that. I am happy to make some inquiries and come back to you about whether or not other organisations have received any such information. I suspect that, had any issues been uncovered, we would have heard about it. The fact that we haven't heard about it is probably an indication that there are no issues out there.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That last part of your answer does not fill me with confidence. You suspect that if there were issues you would have heard about it, and since you haven't, perhaps there aren't. That indicates to me an attitude or a culture in the government of not taking this issue seriously. It is your job as ministers to seek advice and to consider the advice you are provided with. Minister, I did ask you this morning whether the government had sought advice from any agencies. You did undertake to come back to me about that. You appear not to be able to. Can I ask you to confer with the advisers next to you, who will be able to consult the ministerial offices they are here representing. I am sure they have telephones and WhatsApp and Signal and can seek that advice from their ministerial offices and provide that answer to the chamber now. Now is when the chamber is considering relevant amendments which will have implications to foreign interference, which I will come to next.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a very patronising way to treat me, with respect, Senator Paterson.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a patronising question because you can't answer it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I have answered it. I've said that I have not received any advice which would lead me to believe that we currently have an issue in respect of foreign donations. One of the things we're doing here is reflecting the foreign donations provisions in the referendum. The last time the referendum took place, we didn't have those provisions in the referendum act. We will have them in the act now. Those provisions are there to stop foreign donations. I've got the greatest confidence in all of our authorities that, in the event that somebody were seeking to influence our referendum—foreign companies, foreign organisations—we would take the appropriate action to ensure that the law of this country applies and that those foreign donations were prohibited.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, to assist you, I really do think it probably is the case that some of your colleagues in government have been briefed on this question and have sought advice on this question, and I find it extraordinary that you are not able to answer that question on their behalf. It would be remarkable if no advice had been provided to your colleagues. I am surprised it hasn't come to your awareness. I can't go to the content of it, but I myself have received briefings on the risk of foreign interference in this upcoming referendum, so I would be utterly astonished if government ministers had not also received them. Why is it that you are not able to answer this question on behalf of the government on your own bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, we're putting a foreign donations provision into the referendum act to stop exactly what you say you're interested in stopping! What else are we supposed to do? We have a regime—and why do we have a regime to stop foreign donations? It's because two parliaments ago, as the shadow special minister of state, I pushed the government into doing something about it. We have a foreign donations register in the AEC legislation in this country because the Labor Party pushed for it. I can't remember, to be frank, any contribution from you in that role.

We have that legislation and we've put it into the referendum act now, so let the law work as it is intended to work. Stop all these conspiracy theories—all these crazy ideas that you have, obviously. We want a civil Australian referendum to determine whether there should be a Voice to parliament, and that's what this legislation is doing. If you vote in favour of this legislation then you'll get what you say you're after, which is protection from foreign influence in our electoral system.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, is it the government's view that the risk of foreign interference in the referendum is a conspiracy theory?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the government's view that if this legislation passes today then we will match the foreign donations provisions that apply in a general election. We think that is the safest course of action to ensure that there's no foreign influence in this referendum.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, is the only sort of foreign interference or foreign influence that the government is concerned about from foreign political donations, or are you aware of other possible avenues for foreign interference?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're going to apply the foreign interference regulations that apply to a general election. We think that is the appropriate course of action to deal with any potential sources of foreign influence. If we find that there is foreign interference, we will ensure that it's dealt with in the same way that it would be dealt with in respect of a general election.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the government sought or received advice on the risk of foreign interference through social media in relation to the referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have an organisation called the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce, comprised of the relevant agencies across federal government. They work together to provide information and advice to the Australian Electoral Commissioner on matters relating to the integrity of the processes of federal elections and referendums. The following portfolios and agencies are EIAT members: the Australian Electoral Commission; the Department of Finance; the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; the Department of Infrastructure, Transport Regional Development, Communications and the Arts; the Department of Home Affairs; the Attorney-General's Department; the Australian Federal Police; the Australian Signals Directorate; and the Office of National Intelligence. The task force is also supported by members of the National Intelligence Community, as required.

On 26 July 2022, the Australian Electoral Commissioner released a public media statement confirming that the EIAT agencies did not identify any foreign interference or any other interference that compromised the delivery of the 2022 federal election or that would undermine the confidence of the Australian people in the results of that election. Members of the EIAT consult with online media platforms, including for major electoral events such as referenda, and have also established escalation processes for the referral of content in breach of the Commonwealth legislation or in social media platform terms of service. Agencies that participate in the EIAT are already working to provide appropriate support to protect the integrity of the proposed referendum, including from foreign actors. The government will continue to work through the members of the EIAT on risks to integrity of the referendum, including the threat of foreign interference, to ensure the public can have continued confidence in the conduct and the outcome of this and other electoral events.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. That was an interesting answer but not one that addressed the question that I asked, which was: has the government sought or received advice about the risk of foreign interference through social media in relation to the upcoming referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered the question.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, this morning when I asked you a series of questions that you took on notice and undertook to come back to me in the chamber on, one of them was: has the government had any meetings with any of the tech platforms in relation to the risk of foreign interference in the upcoming referendum? What's the answer to that question?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

FARRELL (—) (): I just read out the answer to that question. Obviously you weren't listening. I refer to my previous answers.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't address the question. Has the government sought or had meetings with any of the tech platforms in relation to the risk of foreign interference through social media or online in the upcoming referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to my previous answer.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When did the government meet with the tech platforms in relation to the risk of foreign interference in relation to the upcoming referendum?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to my previous answer.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I don't think it reflects all that well on you that you are refusing to answer this question. If the answer is that the government has not met with the technology platforms in relation to this issue, you should just say so, and if you don't know, you should say that you don't know.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is another condescending remark, which is not appreciated, Senator Paterson. I'll read out what I said previously, which answers your question directly. Members of the EIAT consult with online media platforms, including prior to electoral events including referenda, and have also established escalation processes for the referral of the content in breach of Commonwealth legislation or social media platforms' terms of service.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, when did the government meet with the platforms?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've just explained to you the process of how we deal with these issues. I can repeat this over and over again, Senator Paterson. Maybe at some point you'll get that I've answered your question. There is a process in place to deal with this. I've explained how it's working. I've explained how the AEC have given a report saying that they didn't see any evidence of foreign interference in the last election. I'm hopeful that by adopting exactly the same set of procedures in the referendum we get exactly the same result so that sometime after the referendum there will be a report that discloses that there was no foreign interference in our referendum. The process is all set up to deal with it, Senator Paterson, and I can't understand for the life of me why you can't understand that.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minster, may I follow up on Senator Paterson's question? In a normal election, the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce that you referred to might contact a person that is leading a political party or an organisation, but, in this referendum, we don't have political parties or organisations, so how will this be managed under the current referendum machinery, where participants don't need to register prior to engaging in electoral activity?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have some faith in the AEC. There's a process set up there to deal with this. Those processes will work. I'm absolutely confident of that. We can be assured, I hope, that, at the end of this process, we'll get the same sort of communication from the AEC that we got in July 2022 that they didn't identify any foreign influence in the referendum.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to follow up on that: if an instance of foreign interference occurs or foreign interference activity becomes an issue in a campaign for a referendum, there won't be any official 'yes' organisation or 'no' organisation for intelligence and security agencies to contact about that. In contrast, there are registered political parties at elections, which have officials and structures that can respond to those sorts of events. So, in this referendum, who will the agencies contact to make the 'yes' or 'no' cases aware of any of these issues?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It isn't a case of contacting the 'yes' or 'no' cases. It will be their job to contact the organisation about which it is alleged that they are a foreign organisation seeking to influence an Australian referendum. That is who they'll contact.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I clarify, Minister: what steps has the government taken to educate parties that will potentially be campaigning 'yes' or 'no' about the risks of foreign interference and how those risks can be mitigated?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We haven't passed the legislation yet. Fair crack of the whip! The legislation hasn't passed. In due course, the AEC will do everything that it is required to do to educate people. One of the things that we know we are going to invest in is an education campaign about the referendum, and I'm sure this will be part of anything that the Australian Electoral Commission ultimately communicates with the Australian people. But have some faith that this is going to work the way we want it to work. Have a little bit of faith, both in the AEC and the Australian people, that this will work properly.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme operate during the referendum, and, if so, how will it operate?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It operates all the time, Senator Hume, and will continue to operate throughout the course of the referendum in the same way it works at the moment.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If a referendum related event were to have a speaker who wasn't an Australian citizen, would this activity be captured by the foreign influence scheme?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that it would be covered by the in-kind provisions, but we are starting to move outside the scope of this legislation, I think.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier today, Minister, before we moved onto other things, you said, quite complimentarily, that the AEC Commissioner was able to make himself available to senators—and, no doubt, to members of the House of Representatives. It's great that he's able to have private meetings, but could you undertake to have a special meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee to hold a public inquiry with the commissioner to ask these sorts of questions directly to him and get his direct feedback on the mechanics of how this referendum would be conducted?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be very happy to see if he would make himself available, either to that organisation or to any senator who wants to find out about how this process is going to work.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, it seems to be your view, based on these exchanges, that the existing arrangements are sufficient for guarding against the risk of foreign interference and influence in the upcoming referendum, although it's not clear to me how you could form that view, given you yourself have not sought or received any advice from our agencies about that risk. Therefore, you don't appear to be informed about it. It is, of course, this legislation itself that will contribute to and risk exacerbating the risk of foreign interference, because you have not allowed for official 'yes' and official 'no' campaigns.

The reason why that's important—and you might have known this if you'd met with the tech platforms to discuss this—is that the tech platforms have said to me that it would be very helpful for them to be able to point to official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns as authoritative sources of information if there is, in this political debate, conjecture about disinformation or misinformation which may or may not be driven by foreign states or other actors. How did you form the view that it wasn't necessary to have a 'yes' or 'no' case to ameliorate this risk if you didn't seek or receive briefings from our agencies and if you haven't met with tech platforms to discuss their point of view?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm extremely confident—and I invite you to discuss it with the AEC after this legislation passes—that they are completely in control of this issue. You can never guarantee that no foreign organisation may seek to influence them. I'm not saying that you could make that guarantee. But, certainly, based on the advice that we got subsequent to the last federal election, I have the greatest confidence in the AEC and other organisations that are responsible for monitoring this issue, and I know that they'll be able to deal with any issues that may arise.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that offer of a briefing from the AEC. I've had many such briefings in the past, and from them I know that it's not the AEC's responsibility to deal with content in an election campaign or a referendum campaign. It is, of course, content of speech and debate in the context of a referendum campaign which has the greatest risk of potential foreign interference. We have seen this in relation to recent reporting about foreign interference in the Canadian elections. We have seen this in other elections where content has been weaponised on social media platforms to drive disinformation—sometimes weaponised by foreign states to undermine social cohesion, undermine national unity and cause division. That is the risk in this debate, in this referendum, and it is exacerbated by your policy choice to not allow a formal 'yes' or 'no' case. Will you reconsider your opposition to a 'yes' or 'no' case?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

FARRELL (—) (): No.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation seeks to introduce an amendment to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, and it will be a first for Australia. We have always championed the Australian people having a more direct say in how they are governed. We strongly support a people's democracy, sometimes called direct democracy. Over the years, the need—

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Hanson. I have the minister on his feet.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's probably the wrong place for Senator Hanson to move her amendment. We have a number of amendments before the chair, and, in fact, we have some amendments to our amendments. Can I suggest that we deal with our amendments and Senator Pocock's amendment now and deal with Senator Hanson's amendment at a later point in the proceedings?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'm cognisant that the question before the chair is in relation to those government amendments which you just referenced, but I don't think Senator Hanson has actually moved her amendment at this point. I think she was just foreshadowing moving her amendment. But Senator Hanson does need to be relevant to the question before the chair, which is the content of the current amendment, so I will listen very closely to ensure that she is being relevant to that. But, I think, Senator Hanson, you are in order.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the years, the need has become more urgent. Policymakers, political parties, lobbyists and the media have become increasingly distanced from the Australian people they are supposed to serve. As a result, legislation and political commentary increasingly do not reflect the wishes and aspirations of the Australian electorate, and the people themselves are feeling increasingly powerless and disenfranchised. Our amendment seeks to reverse this trend and, for the first time, allow the agenda to be set by the Australian people, instead of out-of-touch politicians, lobbyists and the media.

I'm talking about citizens initiated referenda. There is ample precedent for this overseas. New Zealand and Switzerland have citizens initiated referenda, and direct democracy is practised to varying degrees in Europe and a number of the United States. One Nation's amendment will add a new schedule to the act after section 145:

This Schedule enables Australian citizens to initiate legislation that provides for the holding of a referendum to alter the Constitution

Part 2 sets out the process that must be followed, and the requirements that must be met …

These are exacting processes and requirements, as should be the case for an initiative to change the founding document of the Commonwealth. Firstly:

… a person who is an elector may apply to the Electoral Commission to register a proposal for a referendum—

The commissioner must examine it—

and decide whether it relates to a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution—

If it does, the commissioner must register the proposal and the applicant must, within six months, lodge a document with the commissioner containing the signatures of two per cent of the total of all electors. Once this requirement has been met, the commissioner must undertake random sampling to verify that at least 50 per cent of the signatures were obtained validly. Once this verification is achieved, 'the minister must cause a proposed law to alter the Constitution, in accordance with the proposal, to be introduced into the parliament'.

The amendment continues:

Part 3 sets out rules that apply to the holding of a citizen initiated referendum. Once a proposed law to alter the Constitution in accordance with the proposal has been passed, by an absolute majority of one House, or both Houses, of the Parliament, in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution, the Governor-General may issue a writ for the citizen initiated referendum to be held—

on the date of the next federal election—

Part 4 deals with delegation of the Electoral Commissioner's functions and powers.

This is not a simple process, and this is intentional. Democracy is not an easy exercise and was never meant to be. By its nature, democracy is hard and difficult. Winston Churchill perhaps described it best when he said that democracy was the world's worst form of government except for all others that have been tried.

Anything worth doing is worth doing well, and democracy has proven its worth time and time again. This is an important truth which the Albanese government seems to have forgotten with its disturbing habit of rushing through extremely poor legislation with the absolute minimum possible scrutiny. One Nation calls on the Albanese Labor government, the opposition and the crossbench to recommit to the fundamental principles of Australian democracy and stop this 'my way or the highway' cowboy approach to lawmaking. There is no better way to signal this commitment to the principles of democracy than by supporting One Nation's amendment and allowing Australian citizens to initiate a referendum.

Minister, there was a discussion about the yes and no vote at the next referendum. Will you be supporting the no vote with the—allowing them to put out literature on the same basis that you are going to put out for the yes vote?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. The government is not supporting either the yes or the no case in a financial sense. It will be up to civil society to conduct the arguments in favour of a yes or a no case.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the NIAA you have allowed for a body of people to put recommendations to the referendum at a cost of about $1.6 million. So, basically, you have already put in place committees and organisations funded by Prime Minister and Cabinet under the NIAA. Is that really saying that you are distancing yourself from the yes campaign?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has sought advice from various organisations in this country to, well, receive advice on the best way in which to go forward in terms of the yes case. I have earlier today explained all of the organisations to which funding has been given, but in terms of the conduct of the yes/no case itself, we are leaving that to civil society.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's make it quite clear. Under Prime Minister and Cabinet, which costs about $4½ billion a year for the NIAA, part of this money has gone to the structure of a body to actually inform the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet about the structure of them working towards this referendum. So does that mean you are saying that you don't fund a yes case at all, although money from the department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has gone to a body of people purely to develop information and a strategy towards the yes vote?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government took to the last election the proposition that we would put a referendum to the Australian people on the issue of whether there should be a recognition of a voice in the federal parliament to Indigenous Australians. The government won the election, and we are carrying through on that promise to the Australian people. In the process, we are seeking advice on the nature of the question that should be put to the Australian people to determine that issue and a range of other issues around that. But once this legislation passes, and the subsequent legislation to deal with that question, then, of course, we are leaving it to the Australian people, either the people who want to vote yes or people who want to vote to no, to run that case, or present the arguments to the Australian people. At some time later in the year—the Prime Minister has said in the second half of the year—there will in fact be a referendum. People will be able to make a choice—yes or no—for Indigenous recognition. I, for one, will be voting yes.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is my last question: Is the Prime Minister aware of the decisions and the direction that the NIAA are headed towards with this referendum? And does he support what they are doing?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask him and get back to you.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To return to my amendment to the government amendment earlier, you said that social media advertising was the least likely to change someone's mind. So I am just interested why the Australian Labor Party spent over $1.3 million on Facebook alone in just the last week of the last election campaign?

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wow, hypocrisy!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no hypocrisy. We are not into hypocrisy in the Labor Party. Rest assured; we are not into hypocrisy. I think you're taking selective references from my comments. You might recall I referenced Twitter and I revealed that Twitter was the least likely form of communication that would change your vote. One of the reasons that political organisations do spend money on social media is to make contact with the people that they know are supporting them. So you spend a lot of money in an election actually geeing up your own supporters and reassuring your own supporters. I don't purport to be an expert on social media. I am sure there are other people who can speak more authoritatively on this topic than I can, but the reason you spend money on social media in that period of the election, as I understand it, is that you reinforce your message to those people who are already are considering voting for you.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the explanation. Finally—then I am very happy to move on—if social media is such a legitimate advertising channel that the Labor Party in one week would spend $1.3 million on Facebook, why don't we just add it to the blackout period? We have listed all the other mediums where people consume content. Social media is a big part of that now.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with Senator Pocock; it is a big part of it, although some people say it's a declining part of it. You can see what's happening to some of the social media organisations around the world and you might conclude that there is a bit of a decline there.

The message I am trying to give the Senate is a simple one: we want the experience that Australians get at this up-and-coming referendum to be as close as possible to the experience they would have in a general election. So what we are trying to do is marry the two sets of provisions so that that can occur. It has been more than 22 years since we have had a referendum. The Electoral Act has been updated. For instance, Senator Paterson was talking about foreign interference. We didn't have that as an issue when we had the republic referendum. It's been raised as an issue since. There has been legislation. We have legislated it in respect of a general election. We are now legislating to make sure that the same provisions apply to a referendum.

I am happy to have the discussion about whether the blackouts should be extended to social media. I am not saying that we should reject that out of hand. But we have a process that deals particularly with general elections. There is a whole range of issues, including many raised in the amendments that the Greens are proposing, like ceilings on disclosure and real-time disclosure. All of these issues will be subject to a JSCEM inquiry. Let's not pre-empt that JSCEM inquiry. There will be significant issues if you extend the ban. I think the appropriate course of action is to let that JSCEM process happen. Let's have a look at what comes out of that and make some evaluations after that. I welcome your participation in that discussion.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have one last question for the minister and then I hope that we can progress this. Having heard the answers you have given the chamber today, Minister, I am interested to know: if this referendum were on a different issue, if it weren't about an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, if it were about something far more basic, would you change the mechanism and the machinery by which Australians go to the polls? Would you consider 'yes' campaign and 'no' campaign organisations, as there have been in previous referenda, or would you persist with this mechanism and this machinery the way you have established and described it today?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I clarify, then, that this machinery bill has been built around the question rather than around the issues of foreign donations, foreign interference and updating the machinery for all of those issues that we have covered off today? In fact, the machinery bill has been updated by the government specifically for this question rather than the fair and free referendum that Australians would normally expect no matter what the question is.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would not agree with that characterisation, Senator Hume. Your previous question was based around what we would do if a different topic were the subject of the referendum. I answered as honestly as I could that I am not sure, and I don't know what we might do in some future referendum.

Our objective here—and I have repeated it so many times today—is to try and get the referendum experience for the Australian people to be as close to a general election as we can. We took a deliberate policy decision not to do what you have been seeking. I have explained to you time and time again that we have made that decision. What we would do in respect of some future referendum, given how hard it's been to get this particular bill through the parliament, I don't know. We would have to look at that and see what we might do. We've made a policy decision that civil society can run these campaigns—they run them free of any political interference—and I'm hopeful that at the end of that process the Australian people vote for an Indigenous voice in the parliament.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, how will homeless people vote?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm assuming you're talking about a homeless person who is not currently on the electoral roll. It's our wish to try and increase the number of people participating in this referendum. We've made some changes that make it easier for people to get on the electoral roll, and I referred to a couple of those changes today. One of them is the use of the Medicare card to get yourself on the roll, and the other one is the use of a naturalisation certificate. I've asked the AEC to focus on trying to increase the level of enrolment between now and the referendum, and I believe that they are doing that. As time goes by and we get closer to the referendum, I think we'll see the number of people on the roll increase. That's certainly my wish. That's certainly what happened, for instance, in the plebiscite that dealt with the issue of same-sex marriage. I'm hopeful that the same processes will apply.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If a First Nations person rocks up on voting day with their ID, will they be allowed to vote?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If they're enrolled, they will be allowed to vote and they won't be required to have ID. You might recall that in the last parliament there was a proposal to require people to produce photographic evidence before they were allowed to vote, and we and the Greens worked very hard to defeat that—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very cosy.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you can call it cosy if you like, but it was a sensible decision. I think that, even now, there would be members of the coalition who would admit that that was the wrong course of action. We defeated that legislation, so you're not required in this country to produce photographic evidence to vote. There's a certain degree of trust in that process. The level of people who vote more than once is absolutely minuscule. I could probably get the exact figures, but I have a feeling that something like 16 people were discovered to have voted more than once at the election before last. So there's only a tiny group of people that ever vote more than once. You've got to have a little bit of faith in the Australian people that they'll participate genuinely in this debate, they'll have the opportunity to express their point of view and that, at the end of the day, they'll make the right decision, which, in my view, is a 'yes' vote for Indigenous recognition.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For those First Nations people who turn up to the booth who are not enrolled to vote—they come with their Medicare card and whatever ID and say, 'We would like to vote on something that will assimilate us into the colonial Constitution'—what is the government doing about those people? How many First Nations people who are not enrolled are you going to turn away on the day?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be my preference that there be none. One of the reasons for allowing the Medicare card to be identification for the purposes of the electoral roll is that I want the people that you're talking about who might turn up on election day to be enrolled today, tomorrow, next week, next month—but well before election day. I'd certainly encourage all of those people to get on the roll. We're making it easier for them to get on the roll. I'd be hopeful that we wouldn't have anybody in the situation that you're talking about on election day, and that they would have been enrolled well and truly before that.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1861, moved by Senator David Pocock, amending government amendment (1) on sheet ZB 195 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Chair, I ask for my position in support of my amendment to be recorded.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe and Senator Waters, I'm assuming you're seeking leave to have your individual and your party positions in support of Senator David Pocock's amendment recorded? That will be done. The question now is that clause 4 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that the remainder of the government amendments on sheets PX149, PX150, PX151, QE100 and ZB195 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1830:

(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 9 — Provisional voting

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

1 After subsection 4(1)

Insert:

(1A) Despite subsection (1), a person is entitled to vote at a referendum if the person makes a claim for enrolment under paragraph 37(1)(f).

2 At the end of subsection 37(1)

Add:

; or (f) the person wishes to make a claim for enrolment and each of the following applies:

(i) the person's name cannot be found on the certified list of voters, or an approved list of voters, for the Division for which the person claims to vote;

(ii) the person is entitled to enrolment and to vote under section 93 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

3 After subsection 37(1)

Insert:

(1AA) A person who wishes to make a claim for enrolment under paragraph (1)(f) may be asked to satisfy the identity requirements under subsection 98AA(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

(1AB) A person who wishes to make a claim for enrolment under paragraph (1)(f) and casts a provisional vote is deemed to have made a claim for enrolment for the purposes of section 98 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

4 Subsection 37(2)

Omit "or claims to be", substitute "claims to be, or wishes to be".

This amendment pertains to on-the-day enrolment not just for First Nations people but for anyone who wishes to have their voice heard in this and any other referendum, who has not been able for a variety of legitimate reasons to be able to enrol themselves prior to election day. As I said in my second reading speech, this bill is an important and timely opportunity to improve enfranchisement, particularly for First Nations communities and particularly on this topic, and we must not waste the opportunity. The government have consistently said that they want the referendum to be as close as possible to a normal election, but in the last election many people missed out on voting. That's something that we need to fix rather than replicate.

We do support the government's commitment to increasing remote-area mobile polling, but that's not enough on its own. We support automatic enrolment and we support the recent changes to allow people to use their Medicare card or their citizenship certificate. They're all good amendments that will help boost enrolment, but they are not enough. I have talked to the government about this consistently and put the position, which we've heard over and over from stakeholders, that on-the-day enrolment and provisional voting will have a significant impact on the number of people able to cast a vote on referendum day. It is, if you like, an insurance policy in case those other provisions don't work. I hope they work, and you seem confident that they will, but if they don't, we need an insurance policy.

This is a foundational document. It is crucial that as many people as possible have their say. We don't require them to all think the same thing. We just want to know what it is that they think. Our amendment would allow voters, including, but not only, First Nation's voters, to attend the polling place, apply for immediate enrolment and cast their votes. That vote would be done by declaration to manage any risk of fraud. That means it would only be added to the formal count after the usual checks are made. The AEC would still need to verify that the enrolment is valid before the vote is counted.

There is no reason not to make this change; it would redress decades of disenfranchisement and make sure that everyone with a stake in the outcome of a referendum is able to exercise their right to vote—and it is a right, not a privilege. It is in fact a right. Moreover, this proposal has the support of the Electoral Commission. Not just that, it has been operating in other states and territories for years. There is no evidence of voter fraud or admin delays, and there is no undermining of election results. There is only evidence that more people get to vote.

I thought this was about increasing and improving democracy, and modernising the laws under which our referenda are conducted so that they might be closer to elections. I thought this was about maximising people's chance to have a say. Well, please pass this amendment! Allow people who wish to have their voice heard to enrol to vote on the day. I have just run you through the checks and balances which will exist, and there is no risk or downside to this! There is only an upside for democracy and for our nation to have its voice heard, ironically, on whether it should have a Voice to parliament. What dark irony it is that you wouldn't allow as many people as possible to have a voice on whether they would like to have a Voice!

Without this reform there's a real risk that many First Nations people may not get the chance to have a say on the Voice referendum. Frankly, it's unconscionable to refuse a change that would only increase the number of votes cast in a referendum. Again, we strongly urge the government and the opposition to support this amendment. This is an issue which, yes, we will agitate through the JSCEM reforms when considering reforms to our electoral laws. But I'm concerned that we won't be able to do that in time for the referendum, and I don't want people to miss out on voting on this important question. We have the chance to actually fix this now. We know it works in other jurisdictions and we know that the AEC is happy with it; I don't understand why you don't just support this! Let people vote! They want to have a say. Please support this amendment.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the Greens amendment: I want to put on the record that the opposition will be opposing that amendment. I have great respect for your position, Senator Waters, but the opposition has the very strong view that changes to the enrolment procedures should be considered by the bipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters rather than done on the fly in the chamber. The voting franchise is the bedrock of the Australian electoral system, and changes to it should be considered in a thoughtful and deliberate manner under existing and established processes, including that joint standing committee. So we will be opposing the amendment.

While I'm on my feet, and for the sake of clarity in the chamber, I should inform the chamber that the opposition will not be moving the amendment on sheet 1803 because that issue has already been dealt with through government amendments. But I will be moving the opposition's amendment on sheet 1804. It which creates official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and ensures that those campaigns have equal funding. I think that the reasons for this amendment have become very clear throughout this committee process. I have stated in many speeches, as have my colleagues on this side of the chamber, that the creation of official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will dramatically improve the integrity of the referendum and will increase trust in the integrity of the process. Having official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will make things much simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum. It will make life so much easier for the AEC and make it so much easier for our intelligence agencies.

The amendment will ensure that once these two bodies are established and appointed by the government, that equal funding is also provided to each side to ensure that neither side is advantaged. These amendments, brought on by the government to the machinery bill, will ensure that they can comply with the disclosure and regulatory regimes and be adhered to at the referendum. I move:

(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 9 — Campaign organisations

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

1 At the end of subsection 11(4)

Add:

; (d) a body nominated under section 11A.

2 After section 11

Insert:

11A Campaign organisations

(1) Where a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution is to be submitted to the electors, the Minister must, within 2 weeks of the passage of the proposed law, by writing nominate:

(a) a body (the Yes campaign organisation) to campaign in favour of the proposed law; and

(b) a body (the No campaign organisation) to campaign against the proposed law.

(2) The Minister must ensure that the Yes campaign organisation and the No campaign organisation are allocated equal amounts of money for the purposes of the administration and operation of each campaign organisation.

(3) Payments under this section shall be made out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament by another Act.

(4) A body nominated by the Minister under subsection (1) ceases to be a nominated body the day after the voting day of a referendum.

3 After subsection 89(4A)

Insert:

(4B) A body nominated by the Minister under subsection 11A(1), or a person authorised by the body to act under this section, may appoint persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre, but the number of scrutineers for each body must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respect the sincerity with which Senator Waters has raised her concerns. My wish is that we don't wait until election day to get people enrolled, that the changes that we've made—which, I'm told, will result in significant additional enrolments between now and the election—will work today, tomorrow, next week and next month. We will get those people on the roll so that we're not relying on the very last day to get them on the roll. In any event, as Senator Hume's pointed out, this should be a matter that is discussed at JSCEM, and I'm very happy to engage in that discussion.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, 87,000 First Nations people are eligible to enrol to vote currently. In a six-month period, which is the predicted period in which this referendum will take place and which by my calculations is 2,416 people needing to be enrolled per week, what is the strategy of this government to achieve that?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've just explained that we are making it easier for people to get on the roll. One of the features of a referendum coming up, of course, is that the AEC does ramp up its effort to ensure people are enrolled and correctly enrolled. The previous government withdrew enrolment funds from the Northern Territory. We have restored that money, and the AEC is already having significant success in increasing enrolments generally and Indigenous enrolments in particular. I am confident that, between now and the vote, we will have significant extra people on the roll.

In terms of the total population, we're now at roughly 98 per cent of Australians being registered to vote. Now, I don't think that, outside of a dictatorship, there is any other democracy in the world that has that level of enrolment. That's not reflected in Indigenous enrolment. We need to ensure that more Indigenous Australians are on the roll and entitled to vote. That was a policy we took to the last election. We have been implementing that and, as I say, the changes I recently made will not only helped total enrolment but will particularly help Indigenous enrolment.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Respectfully, that wasn't really an answer about the practical actions that your government are going to take. Last night at spillover estimates I asked NIAA a very direct question about $75 million that your government have allocated to this referendum, and they said, 'We have strategies.' No-one's actually telling us what those strategies are. In my home state of Western Australia, in the Northern Territory and in Queensland, we have people currently displaced by floods. How do you think those people are going to now, with your confidence, be able to get to the AEC? They are worried about surviving. They are worried about their families. They are worried about their livelihoods. They are not worried about prioritising getting to the AEC to be enrolled. So I would like to hear about the practical strategies.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm quite happy to organise a meeting with you and the AEC to talk about how the AEC is dealing with this. You are obviously talking about a broader group of people. Political parties, if they wish, can go out and try to encourage people to enrol, and they often do. That is a very common practice. I know that in the South Australian branch of the Labor Party, in the six months before the election, we'd go—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're talking about the NT.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, but I was just giving you an example of what you can do as an organisation to—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's black and white people, remember.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, black and white people. We get both on the roll. There are a whole range of things that are happening at the moment. It is having some success, and I think if you talk to the AEC they will confirm that they are having success. We want a greater number of people on the roll. We're doing practical things to actually bring that about, as we speak, and I'm happy to get the AEC to talk to you—to actually go and meet the group.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're the government!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we are the government, and we're making decisions to invest in a range of activities which are going to increase enrolment in this country. That's a good thing. I'm responsible for doing it, I accept that, but the AEC have got a very crucial role in this area. I'd be very happy to make them available to you, so you can go and talk to them about exactly what they're doing right now in the communities that you're talking about.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's just one last contribution from me on this amendment. I accept that the government is doing some administrative measures in an attempt to increase First Nations enrolment and that those changes were made approximately two weeks ago. I accept that. I don't think it should be a choice between doing that and also having an on-the-day enrolment protection mechanism to scoop up anyone who hasn't availed themselves of your administrative opportunities. It doesn't need to be a choice between the two. You can actually do both and genuinely maximise First Nations enrolment. So I don't accept your premise that, because you're doing it now, you can't also have a safety net, if you like, to catch people on the day. I just think your logic there is a little lacking.

There is another point I'd like to make. You have mentioned that this will be considered by JSCEM, in the course of the electoral reforms. I'll just remind the chamber that, in fact, this bill was already considered by JSCEM, and the report recommends that this very change be adopted. The AEC made that suggestion, and the report says, 'What a great idea. Let's do it.' So I do really feel like you're punting the ball down the road a little, when JSCEM has already considered this matter and has already considered in a multipartisan way that this is an amendment that would ensure more people can vote and, in particular, more First Nations people can get on the roll. This is one last opportunity for the government to explain why they don't want to do this extra thing, which seems to have no detractors and no downsides, to help First Nations people vote.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the committee is that the amendment on sheet 1830, as moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1804:

(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 9 — Campaign organisations

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

1 At the end of subsection 11(4)

Add:

; (d) a body nominated under section 11A.

2 After section 11

Insert:

11A Campaign organisations

(1) Where a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution is to be submitted to the electors, the Minister must, within 2 weeks of the passage of the proposed law, by writing nominate:

(a) a body (the Yes campaign organisation) to campaign in favour of the proposed law; and

(b) a body (the No campaign organisation) to campaign against the proposed law.

(2) The Minister must ensure that the Yes campaign organisation and the No campaign organisation are allocated equal amounts of money for the purposes of the administration and operation of each campaign organisation.

(3) Payments under this section shall be made out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament by another Act.

(4) A body nominated by the Minister under subsection (1) ceases to be a nominated body the day after the voting day of a referendum.

3 After subsection 89(4A)

Insert:

(4B) A body nominated by the Minister under subsection 11A(1), or a person authorised by the body to act under this section, may appoint persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre, but the number of scrutineers for each body must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

FARRELL (—) (): I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the amendment on sheet 1804 as moved by Senator Hume be agreed to.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) on sheet 1855 revised:

(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 11 — Voter information

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986

1 After paragraph 11(1)(db)

Insert:

(dc) the functions conferred on the Commission by section 35S; and

2 After Division 4B of Part II

Insert:

Division 4C — Functions relating to impartial referendum information

35R Interpretation

In this Division:

Electoral Commissioner has the same meaning as in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

referendum has the same meaning as in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

Referendum Minister means the Minister administering the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

35S Functions of Commission relating to impartial referendum information

(1) The following functions are conferred on the Commission:

(a) to prepare arguments in favour of, and against, a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament in accordance with subsections (2) and (3);

(b) to promote an understanding of the processes relating to referendums in First Nations and culturally diverse communities;

(c) to prepare, and to publish in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate, factual and impartial information relating to referendum processes in multiple languages, including First Nations languages;

(d) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the preceding functions.

(2) If a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament, being a proposed law passed by an absolute majority of both Houses of the Parliament, is to be submitted to the electors, the Commission must, within 4 weeks after the passage of that proposed law through both Houses of the Parliament, prepare and forward to the Electoral Commissioner:

(a) an argument in favour of the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words; and

(b) an argument against the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words.

(3) If a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament, being a proposed law passed by an absolute majority of one House of the Parliament only, is to be submitted to the electors, the Commission must, within 4 weeks after the second passage of that proposed law through that House of the Parliament, prepare and forward to the Electoral Commissioner:

(a) an argument in favour of the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words.

(b) an argument against the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words.

(4) This section ceases to have effect at the end of the polling day for the first general election of the members of the House of Representatives held after the commencement of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023.

35T Performance of functions relating to impartial referendum information

The Commission may perform the functions referred to in section 35S during the period commencing immediately after either:

(a) a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament is passed by an absolute majority of both Houses of the Parliament; or

(b) the second passage of a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament by an absolute majority of one House of the Parliament only;

and ending either:

(c) at the end of the voting day for a referendum relating to a Voice to Parliament; or

(d) the day after the day the Referendum Minister informs the President that the referendum is not to be held.

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

3 Paragraph 11(1)(b)

Before "within", insert "unless paragraph (c) applies—".

4 Afte r paragraph 11(1)(b)

Insert:

(c) if the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relates to a Voice to Parliament—there is forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner by the Australian Human Rights Commission, arguments prepared in accordance with subsection 35S(2) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; and

5 Paragraph 11(2)(b)

Before "within", insert "unless paragraph (c) applies—".

6 After paragraph 11(2)(b)

Insert:

(c) if the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relates to a Voice to Parliament—there is forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner by the Australian Human Rights Commission, arguments prepared in accordance with subsection 35S(3) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; and

7 After subsection 11(2)

Insert:

(2AA) Paragraphs (1)(c) and (2)(c) cease to have effect at the end of the polling day for the first general election of the members of the House of Representatives held after the commencement of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023.

There has been much debate about the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet being produced by politicians in the so-called two camps. This amendment would take the politics out of preparing essential information about the two cases and put it into the hands of the Australian Human Rights Commission, an entity we all respect, which can ensure that the information provided is correct, factual and provided in clearly accessible terms, ensuring human rights are respected in the process. I urge you all to support this important amendment, as it would vastly improve the process in the upcoming referendum.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government opposes this amendment.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the opposition is also opposing this amendment.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the Greens will be supporting this amendment. As I said in my speech on the second reading, the Greens support the public having access to clear, objective, accurate and respectful information outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases. For many Australians the implications of a referendum are not clear, and they need to have the confidence that the official material produced in this place will help inform their decision. We have already seen the dangers of misinformation and missing information in the current debate.

Submitters to the inquiry into this bill and to the various referendum reviews that preceded it have called for an independent panel to produce the official material. That would help ensure that the material was clearly communicated, that it was accurate, that it was unbiased, that it candidly outlined the pros and cons without fearmongering and that it did not include discretionary or racist talking points. The Australian Human Rights Commission is an expert independent and well-respected body. We support the amendment to give them responsibility for producing the materials to help Australians understand the referendum question. Giving people information they can trust will help to ensure that we get a referendum result with integrity.

I might add that we actually would like to see broader reforms in this space and have truth in political advertising laws, something that we have advocated for for many years now. And I hope that we can have that conversation as well as many others in the course of the JSCEM reforms that are coming down the line. But, in the absence of those laws which actually would have delivered a good and impartial result, we think this is a good suggestion. We will also be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment, which makes a slightly different proposal but with the same intent, to ensure that there's a basis of truth and independence in the preparation of these materials.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put the question that the amendment on sheet 1855, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Can I have my position noted as being in favour of the amendment?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it will be recorded.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Likewise for the Australia Greens, please.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be recorded. Senator Pocock, do you wish to be recorded as being in support?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I seek leave to move amendment (1) on sheet 1851, amendments (1) to (12) on sheet 1815 and amendment (1) on 1816 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

Sheet 1851

(1) Page 10 (after line 15), after Schedule 2, insert:

Schedule 2A — Exclu sion zones

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

1 Paragraphs 131(1)(b) and (1A)(b)

Omit "6 metres", substitute "100 metres".

2 Subparagraph 131(1A)(d)(iii)

Omit "6 metres", substitute "100 metres".

3 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to referendums the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this Schedule.

Sheet 1815

(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (after line 13), after the definition of gift, insert:

initial disclosure period means the period, in a referendum expenditure period, that:

(a) starts at the start of the referendum expenditure period; and

(b) ends on the day of the issue of the writ for the referendum to which the referendum expenditure period relates.

ongoing discl osure period means the period, in a referendum expenditure period, that:

(a) starts on the day after the issue of the writ for the referendum to which the referendum expenditure period relates; and

(b) ends at the end of the referendum expenditure period.

(2) Schedule 4, item 3, page 20 (line 31), at the end of section 109D, add:

; and (c) a contravention of section 109GA or 109GB that would otherwise have been committed by an entity that is not a legal person is taken to have been committed by each member or officer (however described) of the entity, who, acting in that person's actual or apparent authority, engaged in any conduct or made any omission contributing to the contravention.

(3) Schedule 4, item 3, page 25 (after line 2), after Division 2, insert:

Division 2A — Early disclosure of gifts

109GA Disclosure by gift recipients in relation to initial disclosure period

(1) A person or entity (the relevant person), other than the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, must provide a return in accordance with this section if:

(a) the relevant person received a gift or gifts covered by subsection (2) at any time during the initial disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period; and

(b) either:

(i) the amount of at least one such gift was more than the disclosure threshold; or

(ii) the total amount of all gifts received by the relevant person from at least one single person during the initial disclosure period was more than the disclosure threshold.

Note: Returns provided under this section must be published by the Electoral Commissioner on the Transparency Register (see section 320 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918).

Civil penalty:

The higher of the following amounts:

(a) 60 penalty units;

(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, of the gifts not disclosed—3 times that amount.

(2) A gift is covered by this subsection if:

(a) the relevant person knows that the person or entity who made the gift intends the gift to be used for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter; or

(b) the relevant person accepted the gift intending to use the gift for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.

(3) The relevant person must provide to the Electoral Commission a return for the initial disclosure period setting out the following details:

(a) for subparagraph (1)(b)(i):

(i) the amount of each gift covered by that subparagraph; and

(ii) the date on which the gift was made;

(b) for subparagraph (1)(b)(ii):

(i) the total amount of gifts made by each single person who is covered by that subparagraph; and

(ii) the date on which each of those gifts were made;

(c) in any case:

(i) for a gift or gifts on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association (other than a registered industrial organisation within the meaning of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)—the name of the association, and the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association; or

(ii) for a gift or gifts purportedly made out of a trust fund, or out of the funds of a foundation—the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or foundation, and the title, name or other description of the trust fund or foundation; or

(iii) for any other gift or gifts—the name and address of the person who made the gift or gifts.

(4) The return must:

(a) be provided before the end of 7 days after the end of the initial disclosure period; and

(b) be in the approved form.

(5) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (1) of this section.

109GB Disclosure by gift recipients in relation to ongoing disclosure period

(1) A person or entity (the relevant person), other than the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, must provide a return in accordance with this section if:

(a) the relevant person receives a gift covered by subsection (2) from another person or entity at any time during the ongoing disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period; and

(b) the total amount of the following is more than the disclosure threshold:

(i) the gift;

(ii) any earlier gifts covered by subsection (2) that the relevant person has received from the other person or entity since the start of the referendum expenditure period.

Note: Returns provided under this section must be published by the Electoral Commissioner on the Transparency Register (see section 320 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918).

Civil penalty:

The higher of the following amounts:

(a) 60 penalty units;

(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, of the gifts not disclosed—3 times that amount.

(2) A gift is covered by this subsection if:

(a) the relevant person knows that the person or entity who made the gift intends the gift to be used for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter; or

(b) the relevant person accepted the gift intending to use the gift for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.

(3) The return must include the information referred to in subsection (4) in relation to:

(a) the gift mentioned in paragraph (1)(a); and

(b) any earlier gifts mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) in relation to which the relevant person was not already required to give information in a return under section 109GA or this section.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the information is:

(a) the amount of the gift or each of the gifts; and

(b) if the return relates to 2 or more gifts—the total amount of those gifts; and

(c) the date or dates on which the gift or gifts were made; and

(d) the following:

(i) for a gift or gifts on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association (other than a registered industrial organisation within the meaning of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)—the name of the association, and the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association;

(ii) for a gift or gifts purportedly made out of a trust fund, or out of the funds of a foundation—the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or foundation, and the title, name or other description of the trust fund or foundation;

(iii) for any other gift or gifts—the name and address of the person who made the gift or gifts.

(5) The return must:

(a) be provided before the end of 7 days after the gift mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is received; and

(b) be in the approved form.

(6) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (1) of this section.

109GC Disclosure by gift donors in relation to initial disclosure period

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a person or entity (the donor) makes one or more gifts covered by subsection (3) to another person or entity, other than the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, at any time during the initial disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period; and

(b) the total value of the gift or gifts exceeds the disclosure threshold.

(2) The donor must, within 7 days after the end of the initial disclosure period, give to the Electoral Commission a return, in an approved form and in accordance with subsection (4).

Civil penalty:

The higher of the following amounts:

(a) 60 penalty units;

(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, of the gifts not disclosed—3 times that amount.

(3) A gift is covered by this subsection if the donor intends for the gift to be used:

(a) for the dominant purpose of incurring referendum expenditure; or

(b) for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.

(4) The return must include the following information:

(a) the value of the gift, or each of the gifts, made in the initial disclosure period by the donor to the other person or entity;

(b) if the return relates to 2 or more gifts—the total value of those gifts;

(c) the name of that other person or entity;

(d) the date or dates on which the gift or gifts were made.

Note: Returns provided under this section must be published by the Electoral Commissioner on the Transparency Register (see section 320 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918).

(5) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (2) of this section.

109GD Disclosure by gift donors in relation to ongoing disclosure period

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a person or entity (the donor) makes a gift covered by subsection (3) to another person or entity, other than the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, at any time during the ongoing disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period; and

(b) the total value of the following is more than the disclosure threshold:

(i) the gift;

(ii) any earlier gifts covered by subsection (3) made by the donor to that other person or entity since the start of the referendum expenditure period.

(2) The donor must, within 7 days after the end of the ongoing disclosure period, give to the Electoral Commission a return, in an approved form and in accordance with subsection (4).

Civil penalty:

The higher of the following amounts:

(a) 60 penalty units;

(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, of the gifts not disclosed—3 times that amount.

(3) A gift is covered by this subsection if the donor intends for the gift to be used:

(a) for the dominant purpose of incurring referendum expenditure; or

(b) for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.

(4) The return must include the information referred to in subsection (5) in relation to:

(a) the gift mentioned in paragraph (1)(a); and

(b) any earlier gifts mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) in relation to which the donor was not already required to give information in a return under section 109GC or this section.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the information is:

(a) the amount of the gift or each of the gifts; and

(b) if the return relates to 2 or more gifts—the total value of those gifts; and

(c) the name of other person or entity to whom the gift or gifts were made; and

(d) the date or dates on which the gift or gifts were made.

Note: Returns provided under this section must be published by the Electoral Commissioner on the Transparency Register (see section 320 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918).

(6) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (2) of this section.

(4) Schedule 4, item 3, page 29 (line 31), after "109G,", insert "109GA, 109GB, 109GC, 109GD,".

(5) Schedule 4, item 3, page 33 (line 31), omit "or 109G", substitute ", 109G, 109GA, 109GB, 109GC or 109GD".

(6) Schedule 4, item 3, page 34 (line 25), omit "or 109G", substitute ", 109G, 109GA, 109GB, 109GC or 109GD".

(7) Schedule 4, item 3, page 35 (line 21), omit "or 109G", substitute ", 109G, 109GA, 109GB, 109GC or 109GD".

(8) Schedule 4, item 3, page 35 (line 23), omit "or 109G", substitute ", 109G, 109GA, 109GB, 109GC or 109GD".

(9) Schedule 4, item 3, page 36 (line 12), omit "or 109G", substitute ", 109G, 109GA, 109GB, 109GC or 109GD".

(10) Schedule 4, item 3, page 37 (lines 24 and 25), omit "are or may be required to give a return under section 109G", substitute "have been, are or may be required to give a return under section 109G, 109GC or 109GD".

(11) Schedule 4, item 7, page 40 (after table item 6), insert:

(12) Schedule 4, item 8, page 41 (lines 3 and 4), omit "Division 2 of Part VIIIA of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, as inserted by this Schedule, applies", substitute "Divisions 2 and 2A of Part VIIIA of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, as inserted by this Schedule, apply".

Sheet 1816

(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 9 — Referendum Pamphlet Review Panel

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

1 Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

Panel means a Referendum Pamphlet Review Panel established under subsection 135A(1).

2 After subsection 11(2)

Insert:

(2AA) Members of the Parliament may not authorize an argument in favour of, or against, a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(i) or (ii), or (2)(b)(i) or (ii), unless:

(a) the argument has been given to the Panel established in relation to the proposed law for its review; and

(b) the Panel has approved the argument.

(2AB) To avoid doubt, the Electoral Commissioner must not arrange for the printing and sending of a pamphlet under subsection (1) or (2) unless the authorizations of members of the Parliament referred to in that subsection are in accordance with subsection (2AA).

3 After Part X

Insert:

Part XA — Referendum Pam phlet Review Panel

135A Establishment of Referendum Pamphlet Review Panel

(1) If a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution is to be submitted to the electors, the Minister must, by writing, establish a panel to be known as the Referendum Pamphlet Review Panel.

(2) The Minister must ensure that the Panel is established, and members mentioned in paragraph 135C(1)(c) appointed, such that it will have sufficient time to perform its functions in relation to the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution, taking into account the period within which arguments may be forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner in accordance with subsections 11(1) and (2).

(3) An instrument made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.

135B Functions of the Panel

(1) The Panel has the following functions:

(a) to conduct a review of the arguments in favour, and against, the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution, which are to be contained in pamphlets referred to in section 11;

(b) to determine what changes (if any) to the arguments the Panel considers should be made to address any concerns of the Panel in relation to the arguments;

(c) to decide whether to approve the arguments;

(d) to do anything else that is incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the preceding functions.

(2) In performing its functions in relation to an argument mentioned in subsection (1), the Panel must only consider matters relating to whether the argument contains:

(a) any statements purporting to be a statement of fact that are:

(i) misleading or deceptive to a material extent; or

(ii) likely to mislead or deceive to a material extent; or

(b) any statements that are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate one or more persons on the ground of the persons':

(i) race, colour or national or ethnic origin; or

(ii) sex; or

(iii) sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status (all within the meaning of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984); or

(iv) age; or

(v) disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992).

135C Membership of the Panel

(1) The Panel consists of the following members:

(a) the Electoral Commissioner;

(b) the Parliamentary Librarian appointed under section 38C of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999;

(c) at least 3 persons appointed by the Minister under subsection (2) of this section.

(2) Members of the Panel mentioned in paragraph (1)(c) are to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument.

(3) A person must not be appointed as a member of the Panel under subsection (2) unless:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications, skills or experience in fact-checking or culturally appropriate communications; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that the person does not have any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, that conflicts or could conflict with the proper performance of the person's duties as a member of the Panel; and

(c) the Prime Minister has consulted with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives about the appointment.

(4) In appointing members of the Panel under subsection (2), the Minister must ensure, to the extent practicable, that:

(a) the members of the Panel mentioned in paragraph (1)(c) are an appropriate mix of persons with the qualifications, skills or experience mentioned in paragraph (3)(a); and

(b) if one or more working groups (however described) were established by or on behalf of the Commonwealth in relation to the development of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution—the Panel includes one or more persons who were included in such working groups; and

(c) the Panel includes at least 2 other persons who have extensive experience at a high level in a field of research relevant to the Panel's functions in relation to the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution.

(5) To avoid doubt, the Electoral Commissioner may not delegate under section 138 the Commissioner's duties as a member of the Panel.

135D Other matters relating to the Panel

(1) The regulations may prescribe matters relating to the Panel, including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) the operation and procedures of the Panel;

(b) remuneration or allowances of members mentioned in paragraph 135C(1)(c);

(c) resignation of members mentioned in paragraph 135C(1)(c);

(d) disclosure of interests by members of the Panel;

(e) termination of appointment of members mentioned in paragraph 135C(1)(c);

(f) leave of absence of members of the Panel.

(2) If no regulations are in force under subsection (1), the operation and procedures of the Panel may be as determined in writing by the Panel.

(3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1979 do not apply in relation to the office of a member of the Panel mentioned in paragraph 135C(1)(c).

Note: The effect of this subsection is that any remuneration or allowances of a such a member will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

I have been in discussions with the government about these amendments. The first one is about simply having an exclusion zone around polling booths. This is done in Tasmania and the ACT. It works very effectively in taking the heat out of polling booths. In my opinion it's a much nicer experience for voters. Given the sensitivity of this referendum and some of the rhetoric we are already hearing, I believe it is a sensible amendment to ensure that people are safe when they're casting their vote.

The amendments on sheet 1815 truncate the disclosure time frame. To me it's frankly ridiculous in 2023 that, six months after an election, we find out who funded it. We have plenty of technology to be able to do that in a much more timely manner. I'm proposing seven days to disclose, seven days to make that public. I understand the government's reason—that they're waiting for JSCEM—but this is something that we know Australians want and something we have the technology to do, and it's disappointing not to have support for a sensible amendment like that.

Finally, a review of the pamphlet arguments—just leaving it up to politicians. We've seen over a number of elections political parties being willing to be very creative with the truth, down to smear campaigns and misinformation. It seems to me that having some sort of independent check on that is a sensible move.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government will be opposing these amendments.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be opposing all three amendments.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting these sensible amendments, in particular about real-time disclosure. We have a similar amendment to achieve the same outcome, although I do note that we would actually like the disclosure threshold to be lowered down to $1,000. I note that this amendment would simply maintain the disclosure threshold where it is. But we are in support of real-time disclosure, and, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, we support an independent review of the pamphlet text. We are happy enough with this formulation of folk to do that, as we were with the previous amendment.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'd just like to put on record that we're in the affirmative for 1815 and 1851 but in the negative for 1816.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll break the question then.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to put on the record that I support Senator Pocock's amendments.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that all amendments on sheets 1851 and 1815, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unless any senator wishes to make a further contribution, I intend to put Senator Pocock's further amendments. No senators wish to speak, so I will put the question that all the amendments on sheet 1816, standing in the name of Senator Pocock, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Chairman, under the standing orders I ask that the names of Greens senators be recorded as being in favour of the motion, along with Senator Thorpe and Senator David Pocock.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 12 — Secure telephone voting

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

1 Section 73L

Insert:

electronically assisted voting method includes a method prescribed for the purposes of subsection 73M(1B).

2 After subsection 73M(1A)

Insert:

(1B) The regulations must provide for a telephone voting method, to be used by persons covered by a determination under subsection 73QB(1), to vote at referendums.

3 Subsection 73M(3)

Omit "subsection (1) or (1A)", substitute "subsection (1), (1A) or (1B)".

4 Subsec tion 73M(7)

Omit "and Antarctic electors", substitute ", Antarctic electors and persons covered by a determination under subsection 73QB(1)".

5 At the end of Part IVB

Add:

73QB Electoral Commissioner must determine that certain persons may use a secure tel ephone voting method

(1) The Electoral Commissioner must, by legislative instrument, determine that a secure telephone voting method prescribed for the purposes of subsection 73M(1B) may be used by individuals:

(a) who have not previously voted in the referendum; and

(b) who are a member of a class of persons specified in subsection (2) during all or part of the period:

(i) starting at 6.01pm on the Wednesday that is 3 days before the voting day in the referendum; and

(ii) ending on the close of voting for the referendum.

Note: Nothing in this section or in the regulations made for the purposes of subsection 73M(1B) authorises any person to vote more than once at a referendum, see subsection 73M(6).

(2) The class of persons for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) include the following:

(a) voters located in a remote area;

(b) voters receiving residential care (within the meaning of the Aged Care Act 1997);

(c) voters impacted by a declared emergency or declared natural disaster;

(d) voters in hospital who are unable to attend a polling place;

(e) voters located overseas who do not have access to a postal vote or overseas polling place;

(f) itinerant electors;

(g) any other class of persons specified in the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

(3) The regulations may specify eligibility requirements for the classes of persons mentioned in subsection (2).

Instrument must be published on the Electoral Commission's website

(4) If the Electoral Commissioner makes a legislative instrument under subsection (1), the Electoral Commissioner:

(a) must publish the legislative instrument on the Electoral Commission's website; and

(b) may publish the legislative instrument in any other way the Electoral Commissioner considers appropriate.

Electoral Commissi oner's powers may not be delegated

(5) Despite section 138, the Electoral Commissioner may not delegate a power or function under this section.

These amendments would introduce telephone voting provisions similar to those we had during COVID. It is nothing radical, nothing new and completely doable. It is a small measure with a big impact that would allow so many people who otherwise could not vote to vote because they can't physically attend a voting booth to cast their votes. If referendums are really the people's vote then we should all support these amendments. I'll also add that I won't be moving amendments on sheets 1854 or 1818.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Thorpe.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to indicate that the opposition will not be supporting Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 1865.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, would you like to put the position of the Greens?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you. We have an incredibly similar amendment, and we think both are great.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to put my support in, but just my support for this one. Thank you.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

K () (): May I please indicate my support as well.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment on sheet 1865 standing in the name of Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can my vote be recorded?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I think everyone's position is known, given the declarations ahead of the putting of the vote. But I'll make sure it's recorded.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 9 — Citizen Initiated Referendums

Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984

1 After section 145

Insert:

146 Schedule 5

Schedule 5 has effect.

2 At the end of the Act

Add:

Schedule 5 — Citizen Initiated Referendums

Note: See section 146.

Part 1 — Preliminary

1 Guide to this Schedule

This Schedule enables Australian citizens to initiate legislation that provides for the holding of a referendum to alter the Constitution.

Part 2 sets out the process that must be followed, and the requirements that must be met, in order for a citizen to initiate the holding of a referendum.

The process involves the following steps:

(a) a person who is an elector may apply to the Electoral Commission to register a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution;

(b) the Electoral Commissioner must examine the proposal and decide whether it relates to a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution;

(c) if the proposal relates to a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution, the Electoral Commissioner must register the proposal and the applicant must then lodge with the Electoral Commission a document containing the signatures of 2% of the total of all electors;

(d) if the applicant lodges the document within 6 months of the proposal being registered, the Electoral Commissioner must undertake random sampling to verify that at least 2% of those signatures were obtained validly;

(e) once a proposal is verified, the Minister must cause a proposed law to alter the Constitution, in accordance with the proposal, to be introduced into the Parliament.

Part 3 sets out rules that apply to the holding of a citizen initiated referendum. Once a proposed law to alter the Constitution in accordance with the proposal has been passed, by an absolute majority of one House, or both Houses, of the Parliament, in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution, the Governor-General may issue a writ for the citizen initiated referendum to be held.

Part 4 deals with delegation of the Electoral Commissioner's functions and powers.

2 Object of this Schedule

The object of this Schedule is to enable Australian citizens to initiate a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution.

3 Defini tions

In this Schedule:

citizen initiated referendum means a referendum resulting from a proposal that is verified under clause 9.

qualifying day, for a proposal for a referendum, has the meaning given by subclause 8(2).

qualifying requirements, for a proposal for a referendum, has the meaning given by subclause 8(1).

random sampling process has the meaning given by subclause 9(3).

Part 2 — Process for initiating a referendum

4 Application to register proposal for referendum

(1) A person who is an elector may apply to the Electoral Commission to register a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution.

(2) An application to register a proposal for a referendum must:

(a) be in the approved form; and

(b) contain an outline of the proposal; and

(c) be accompanied by the application fee prescribed by the regulations.

(3) The amount of the application fee must not be such as to amount to taxation.

(4) The application fee may be refunded in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

5 Electoral Commissio ner to examine proposal for referendum

Within 1 month after receiving an application under clause 4, the Electoral Commissioner must examine the proposal outlined in the application and decide whether it is a proposal to amend the Constitution.

6 Registration of proposal for referendum

(1) The Electoral Commissioner must, after the examination, register the proposal unless he or she is satisfied that the proposal does not relate to a proposal to amend the Constitution.

(2) If the Electoral Commissioner is not satisfied that the proposal relates to a constitutional matter, the Electoral Commissioner must reject the application to register the proposal.

(3) The Electoral Commissioner may not reject an application without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard.

7 Notice of decision

Within 7 days after making a decision under clause 6, the Electoral Commissioner must give a written notice to the applicant:

(a) if the decision was to register the proposal—setting out the following:

(i) a statement that the proposal has been registered;

(ii) a statement that the applicant must satisfy the qualifying requirements for the proposal by the qualifying day in order for the proposal to progress;

(iii) the qualifying day for the proposal; or

(b) if the decision was to reject the application for the proposal—stating that the proposal has been rejected.

8 Meaning of qualifying r equirements and qualifying day

(1) An applicant will satisfy the qualifying requirements for a proposal for a referendum if the applicant lodges with the Electoral Commission a document containing the signatures, printed names and addresses of at least 2% of all electors in a majority of States.

(2) The qualifying day for a proposal for a referendum is the day that is 1 month after the end of the period of 6 months starting when the proposal is registered under clause 6.

9 Electoral Commissioner to verify t hat qualifying requirements have been satisfied

(1) This clause applies if:

(a) an applicant lodges a document with the Electoral Commission that purports to satisfy the qualifying requirements for a proposal for a referendum; and

(b) the document is lodged by the end of the qualifying day for the proposal.

(2) Within 4 months after the applicant lodges the document, the Electoral Commission must:

(a) undertake a random sampling process to verify whether the signatures contained in the document were validly obtained; and

(b) either:

(i) if the results of the random sampling process indicate that the signatures contained in the document were validly obtained—verify the proposal and notify the applicant, in writing, that the proposal has been verified; or

(ii) otherwise—notify the applicant, in writing, that the proposal has been rejected.

(3) To undertake a random sampling process in respect of the signatures contained in a document, the Electoral Commission must:

(a) randomly select at least 2% of the persons whose signatures are contained in the document; and

(b) contact each of those persons to verify that their signature was validly obtained; and

(c) undertake any procedure set out in the regulations in respect of the random sampling process.

10 Minister to arrange for introduction of proposed law

Within 2 months after a proposal for a referendum is verified under clause 9, the Minister must cause a proposed law that will alter the Constitution in accordance with the proposal to be introduced into the Parliament.

Part 3 — Holding a citizen initiated referendum

11 Writ for referendum

(1) If:

(a) a proposal for a referendum has been verified under clause 9; and

(b) a proposed law to alter the Constitution in accordance with the proposal has been passed by an absolute majority of one House, or both Houses, of the Parliament, in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution;

the Governor-General may issue a writ for the submission of the proposed law to the electors.

(2) A writ issued under subclause (1):

(a) may be in accordance with Form A in Schedule 1 to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984; and

(b) must be signed by the Governor-General; and

(c) must appoint:

(i) the day for the close of the Rolls; and

(ii) the day for taking the votes of electors; and

(iii) the day for the return of the writ.

Part 4 — Miscellaneous

12 Delegation by Electoral Commissioner

The Electoral Commissioner may, in writing, delegate to the Deputy Electoral Commissioner all or any of the functions or powers of the Electoral Commissioner under this Schedule.

I'll just briefly say that the amendment is in relation to citizen initiated referenda. It means that two per cent of the population can get a petition drawn up in accordance with the AEC and present it to the parliament, and, if the parliament agrees to it and it passes both houses, then it will be put to a vote at a referendum by the people. This will give the people of Australia an opportunity to sign a petition and present it to the parliament if they have concerns with anything that's in the referendum, whether they wish to have something inserted or withdrawn from the referendum. It's basically the people's democracy. I must assure the parliament that it cannot be passed without both houses agreeing to it. It's basically giving the people a voice. This has actually worked in other countries around the world who have this in place, and it's worked very well for them. I think it's about time that we allow the people to have more of a voice in this country.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There seems to be a bit of a mood around the chamber that, with a little bit of extra time beyond 7.30 pm, we may be able to conclude all stages this evening. I move:

That progress be reported.

Question agreed to.

Progress reported.